Ah, I gather that you believe you were the subject of a NSL (or several
NSLs) to your various comms providers, rather than being the recipient
of a letter. Fair enough. The ruling is *stayed* for 90 days pending
appeal (which is nearly certain), so in the meantime the law *hasn't*
changed, and if you were in violation of a NSL secrecy order today you'd
be in trouble, regardless of the judge's ruling.
> Some things the Secret Service did to snoop on me that you should also
> be aware of, and some feedback follow:
>> * SS served Google with an NSL to obtain my account information.
Do you have reason to believe this other than the "ToS tell"? That
seems pretty flimsy evidence to me.
> * My Google account was being operated by someone else, despite
> utilizing 2-step and very strong passwords. This may have been limited
> to a Google Chat 0day, unpublished vulnerability, or a Google
> backdoor. My chat contacts said I was online when I was not online or
> had messaged them, when I had not.
gchat is notoriously flaky. I'd want to back that up with chat logs
from your friends if I were trying to make a convincing case.
> * I received multiple emails from shady individuals asking me to
> provide / sell 0day. Some were in poor English. I presume this may
> have been a baiting tactic to get me on some technicality. I did not
> sell any 0day nor did I accept their request to "help them" with
> whatever they were seeking in terms of shady deals.
Posting 0day on full-disclosure will do that.
> * One of my encrypted Desktop home Linux computers was mysteriously
> wiped upon my return from a trip. The RAID array was 'corrupted'.
Hardware happens.
> * People I know started getting strange calls from random numbers at
> odd hours. I wonder if this was some attempt to exploit remote
> listening flaws in some phones, but I am justly paranoid.
>> * Someone opened mail / packages at my physical residence to reveal
> the contents inside. This was very odd and not something that ever
> happens. It occurred at least twice to my knowledge.
>> * Local police were posted outside my residence the morning I received
> numerous calls from SS agents.
Those ones are definitely fun! Document, document, document. And
publish.
> * SS confirmed over the phone that they monitored my Google account,
> after I told them I knew they were. At first, they would not tell me
The agents are allowed, nay encouraged, to lie to you. If it furthers
their investigation, I'd expect it. It's a hall of mirrors.
> On Wed, Mar 20, 2013 at 5:10 PM, Andy Isaacson <adi at hexapodia.org> wrote:
> > Did you receive one of the few NSLs without a confidentiality
> > requirement, or did you manage to get it set aside, or are you relying
> > on Judge Illston's decision in this disclosure? (Just curious.)
>> It did not have a confidentiality requirement, to my knowledge.
You'd not be bound by it unless you were the recipient, presumably.
-andy